Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Region 4 States; Prong 3 Infrastructure Requirement for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 21841-21845 [2013-08266]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
§ 117.415
[Amended]
2. In § 117.415, remove paragraph (b),
and redesignate paragraph (c) as
paragraph (b).
■
11. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
§ 117.427
■
[Removed]
3. Remove § 117.427.
Dated: March 28, 2013.
Roy A. Nash,
Rear Admiral, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard,
Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013–08580 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
12. Energy Effects
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
13. Technical Standards
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL– 9799–8]
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Region 4
States; Prong 3 Infrastructure
Requirement for the 1997 and 2006
Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
14. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that this action is one
of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves
removing 33 CFR 117.415(b) and 33 CFR
117.427 due to removal of drawbridges
from the waterway. This rule is
categorically excluded, under figure
2–1, paragraph (32) (e), of the
Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32) (e),
of the Instruction, an environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are not
required for this rule.
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking final action to
approve submissions from Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina
for inclusion into each states’ State
Implementation Plans (SIP). This action
pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements regarding prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. The CAA
requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPA is taking final
action to approve the submissions for
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina that relate to adequate
provisions prohibiting emissions that
interfere with any other state’s required
measures to prevent significant
deterioration of its air quality. All other
applicable infrastructure requirements
for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS associated with these
States are being addressed in separate
rulemakings. EPA is also providing
clarification for a footnote that was
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21841
included in the proposed rulemaking for
this action.
DATES: This rule is effective May 13,
2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2012–0814. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9043.
Mr. Lakeman can be reached via
electronic mail at
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. This Action
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Upon promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address
basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and
modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance for that new NAAQS. On
July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA
promulgated a new annual PM2.5
NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR
61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour
NAAQS. On December 5, 2012, EPA
proposed to approve Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina’s
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
21842
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
submissions addressing section
110(a)(2) (D)(i)(II) related to PSD. A
summary of the background for today’s
final action is provided below. See
EPA’s December 5, 2012, proposed
rulemaking at 77 FR 72284 for more
detail.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of a new or revised
NAAQS within three years following
the promulgation of such NAAQS, or
within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the
obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised
NAAQS, but the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon
the facts and circumstances. The data
and analytical tools available at the time
the state develops and submits the SIP
for a new or revised NAAQS affects the
content of the submission. The contents
of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the
state’s existing SIP already contains. In
the case of the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements
required in section 110(a)(2) through
earlier SIP submissions in connection
with previous PM NAAQS.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1)
provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2)
lists specific elements that states must
meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP
requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. As
already mentioned, these requirements
include SIP infrastructure elements
such as modeling, monitoring, and
emissions inventories that are designed
to assure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS. However, EPA is only
addressing element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
related to PSD in this action.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two
components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
includes four distinct components,
commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that
generally must be addressed in SIP
submissions. The first two prongs,
which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that
prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth
prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that
prohibit emissions activity in one state
interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or
to protect visibility in another state
(‘‘prong 4’’). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
requires SIPs to include provisions
insuring compliance with sections 115
and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
In previous actions, EPA has already
taken action to address Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South
Carolina’s SIP submissions related to
sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s
final rulemaking action relates only to
requirements related to prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which as
previously described, requires that the
SIP contain adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that interfere with
any other state’s required measures to
prevent significant deterioration of its
air quality. More information on this
requirement and EPA’s rationale for
today’s proposal that each state is
meeting this requirement for purposes
of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is provided below.
II. This Action
EPA is taking final action to approve
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina’s infrastructure
submissions as demonstrating that the
States meet the applicable requirements
of prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the CAA, that relate to adequate
provisions prohibiting emissions that
interfere with any other state’s required
measures to prevent significant
deterioration of its air quality for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the CAA
requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which
is commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP.
On December 5, 2012, EPA proposed
to approve Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina’s July
25, 2008, July 23, 2008, December 7,
2007, and March 14, 2008, (respectively,
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS) and
September 23, 2009, October 21, 2009,
October 6, 2009, and September 18,
2009, (respectively, for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS) infrastructure SIP
submissions addressing prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
Regarding final approval of Georgia
and South Carolina’s prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA’s December 5, 2012
(77 FR 72284), proposed action required
EPA to first take final action to approve
Georgia’s July 26, 2012, and South
Carolina’s May 1, 2012, SIP revisions
regarding PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5
Increments) into each State’s
implementation plan. Final approval of
Georgia’s July 26, 2012, PSD SIP
revision was signed on March 27, 2013,
and final approval of South Carolina’s
May 1, 2012, PSD SIP revision was
signed on March 21, 2013.
EPA notes that on September 26,
2012, the Agency approved the
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC) portion of the PM2.5 PSD
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule into the SIPs
for Alabama and Mississippi. See 77 FR
59100 and 77 FR 59095. Since that time,
on January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C.
Cir. 2013), issued a judgment that, inter
alia, vacated the provisions adding the
PM2.5 SMC to the federal regulations, at
40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated
as part of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. In its
decision, the court held that EPA did
not have the authority to use SMCs to
exempt permit applicants from the
statutory requirement in section
165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient
monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in
all PSD permit applications. Thus,
although the PM2.5 SMC was not a
required element of a State’s PSD
program and thus not a structural
requirement for purposes of
infrastructure SIPs, were a SIP-approved
PSD program that contains such a
provision to use that provision to issue
new permits without requiring ambient
PM2.5 monitoring data, such application
of the SIP would be inconsistent with
the court’s opinion and the
requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the
CAA.
Given the clarity of the court’s
decision, it would now be inappropriate
for Mississippi or Alabama to continue
to allow applicants for any pending or
future PSD permits to rely on the PM2.5
SMC in order to avoid compiling
ambient monitoring data for PM2.5.
Because of the vacatur of the EPA
regulations, the SMC provisions,
included in these States’ SIP-approved
PSD programs on the basis of EPA’s
regulations are unlawful and no longer
enforceable by law. Permits issued on
the basis of these provisions as they
appear in approved SIPs would be
inconsistent with the CAA and difficult
to defend in administrative and judicial
challenges. Thus, the SIP provisions
may not be applied even prior to their
removal from the SIPs. Mississippi and
Alabama should instead require
applicants requesting a PSD permit,
including those having already been
applied for but for which the permit has
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
not yet been received, to submit ambient
PM2.5 monitoring data in accordance
with the CAA requirements whenever
either direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5
precursor is emitted in a significant
amount.1 As the previously-approved
PM2.5 SMC provisions in the Mississippi
and Alabama SIPs are no longer
enforceable, EPA does not believe the
existence of the provisions in the States’
SIPs precludes today’s approval of the
infrastructure SIP submissions for these
States as the submissions relate to prong
3 of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5NAAQS.
EPA intends to initiate a rulemaking
to correct SIPs that were approved with
regard to the PM2.5 SMCs prior to the
court’s decision. EPA also advises the
States to begin preparations to remove
the PM2.5 provisions from their state
PSD regulations and SIPs. However,
EPA has not yet set a deadline requiring
States to take action to revise their
existing PSD programs to address the
court’s decision.
EPA also notes that on January 4,
2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in
Natural Resources Defense Council v.
EPA, No. 08–1250, 2013 WL 45653 (D.C.
Cir., filed July 15, 2008) (consolidated
with 09–1102, 11–1430), issued a
judgment that remanded EPA’s 2007
and 2008 rules implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered EPA
to ‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to
Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.’’
Id. at *8. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of
the CAA establishes additional
provisions for particulate matter
nonattainment areas.
The 2008 implementation rule
addressed by the court decision,
‘‘Implementation of New Source Review
(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ 73
FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), promulgated
NSR requirements for implementation
of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas
(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/
unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the
requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain
to nonattainment areas, EPA does not
consider the portions of the 2008 rule
that address requirements for PM2.5
attainment and unclassifiable areas to be
affected by the court’s opinion.
Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the
need to revise any PSD requirements
promulgated in the 2008 rule in order to
1 In lieu of the applicants’ need to set out PM
2.5
monitors to collect ambient data, applicants may
submit PM2.5 ambient data collected from existing
monitoring networks when the permitting authority
deems such data to be representative of the air
quality in the area of concern for the year preceding
receipt of the application. EPA believes that
applicants will generally be able to rely on existing
representative monitoring data to satisfy the
monitoring data requirement.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
comply with the court’s decision.
Accordingly, EPA’s actions for the
Florida infrastructure SIPs as related to
element (D)(i)(II) with respect to the
PSD requirements promulgated by the
2008 implementation rule does not
conflict with the court’s opinion.
The court’s decision with respect to
the nonattainment NSR requirements
promulgated by the 2008
implementation rule also does not affect
EPA’s action on the present
infrastructure action. EPA interprets the
Act to exclude nonattainment area
requirements, including requirements
associated with a nonattainment NSR
program, from infrastructure SIP
submissions due 3 years after adoption
or revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these
elements are typically referred to as
nonattainment SIP or attainment plan
elements, which would be due by the
dates statutorily prescribed under
subpart 2 through 5 under part D,
extending as far as 10 years following
designations for some elements.
Additionally, it should be noted that
in the December 5, 2012, proposed rule,
on page 72286, in footnote #2, EPA
stated that ‘‘[o]n June 11, 2010, the
South Carolina Governor signed an
Executive Order to confirm that the
State had authority to implement
appropriate emission thresholds for
determining which new stationary
sources and modification projects
become subject to PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions at
the state level.’’ It should have read
‘‘[o]n June 11, 2010, the South Carolina
Governor signed a Joint Resolution to
confirm that the State had authority to
implement appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new
stationary sources and modification
projects become subject to PSD
permitting requirements for their GHG
emissions at the state level.’’
EPA received one comment in
support of EPA’s action and one offtopic comment on its December 5, 2012,
proposed rulemaking to approve
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina’s SIP submissions as
meeting the prong 3 requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The off-topic Commenter
wanted ‘‘to congratulate EPA workers
for trying to decrease particles and
increase the public’s health.’’ This
comment does not appear to be related
to the issues presented in the proposed
rulemaking, and instead, appears related
to a wholly separate topic—
promulgation of the new 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA does not interpret this
comment as relevant to the topic of
EPA’s December 5, 2012, proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21843
action. Instead, EPA interprets this
comment as being off-topic and outside
of the scope of today’s final rulemaking.
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina’s infrastructure
submissions addressed the prong 3
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly,
EPA has determined that Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South
Carolina’s submissions are consistent
with section 110 of the CAA.
III. Final Action
As described above, EPA is approving
SIP submissions for Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina to
incorporate provisions into the States’
implementation plans to address the
prong 3 requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for both the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve the States’ prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions because they
are consistent with section 110 of the
CAA. Today’s action is not approving
any specific rule, but rather making a
determination that Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina’s
already-approved SIPs meet certain
CAA requirements.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by Commonwealth law.
For that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L.104–4);
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
21844
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
EPA has determined that this final
rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
there are no ‘‘substantial direct effects’’
on an Indian Tribe as a result of this
action. EPA notes that the Catawba
Indian Nation Reservation is located
within South Carolina. Pursuant to the
Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act,
S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state
and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the Catawba Indian
Nation and Reservation and are fully
enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.’’ Thus,
while the South Carolina SIP applies to
the Catawba Reservation, because
today’s action is not a substantive
revision to the South Carolina SIP, and
is instead proposing that the existing
SIP will satisfy the prong 3
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
EPA has determined that today’s action
will have no ‘‘substantial direct effects’’
on the Catawba Indian Nation. EPA has
also determined that these revisions will
not impose any substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 11, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: March 28, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart B—Alabama
2. In § 52.50, paragraph (e) is amended
by adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for
the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the
end of the table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.50
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
Applicable geographic
or nonattainment area
State submittal
date/effective
date
*
*
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
*
Alabama ....................
*
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Subpart L—Georgia
3. In § 52.570, paragraph (e) is
amended by adding two new entries for
‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
Alabama ....................
EPA Approval date
Explanation
7/25/2008
*
*
4/12/2013 [Insert citation
of publication].
9/23/2009
4/12/2013 [Insert citation
of publication].
*
Addressing element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong
3 only
Addressing element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong
3 only
Requirements for the 1997 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2006 Fine Particulate Matter National
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the
end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.570
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
*
*
21845
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
Applicable geographic
or nonattainment area
State submittal
date/effective
date
*
*
42. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
43. 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
*
Georgia ......................
*
Subpart Z—Mississippi
4. In § 52.1270, paragraph (e) is
amended by adding two new entries for
‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 Fine
■
Explanation
7/23/2008
*
*
4/12/2013 [Insert citation
of publication].
10/21/2009
Georgia ......................
EPA Approval date
4/12/2013 [Insert citation
of publication].
*
Addressing element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong
3 only
Addressing element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong
3 only
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2006 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ at the
end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.1270
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MISSISSIPPI NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
Applicable geographic
or nonattainment area
State submittal
date/effective
date
*
*
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
*
Mississippi .................
*
Subpart PP—South Carolina
5. In § 52.2120, paragraph (e) is
amended by adding three new entries
for ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 Fine
■
Explanation
12/7/2007
*
*
4/12/2013 [Insert citation
of publication].
10/6/2009
Mississippi .................
EPA approval date
4/12/2013 [Insert citation
of publication].
*
Addressing element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong
3 only
Addressing element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong
3 only
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards’’ and ‘‘110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2006 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ at the
end of the table to read as follows:
§ 52.2120
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
State effective
date
Provision
*
*
*
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
EPA approval date
Explanation
4/14/2008
*
*
4/12/2013 [Insert citation
of publication].
9/18/2009
4/12/2013 [Insert citation
of publication].
*
Addressing element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong
3 only
Addressing element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong
3 only
*
[FR Doc. 2013–08266 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM
12APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21841-21845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08266]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814; FRL- 9799-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Region 4
States; Prong 3 Infrastructure Requirement for the 1997 and 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve submissions from
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina for inclusion into
each states' State Implementation Plans (SIP). This action pertains to
the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements regarding prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. The CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. EPA is taking final action to
approve the submissions for Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South
Carolina that relate to adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent
significant deterioration of its air quality. All other applicable
infrastructure requirements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS associated with these States are being addressed
in separate rulemakings. EPA is also providing clarification for a
footnote that was included in the proposed rulemaking for this action.
DATES: This rule is effective May 13, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. This Action
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR
38652), EPA promulgated a new annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS. On
December 5, 2012, EPA proposed to approve Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi
and South Carolina's
[[Page 21842]]
submissions addressing section 110(a)(2) (D)(i)(II) related to PSD. A
summary of the background for today's final action is provided below.
See EPA's December 5, 2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR 72284 for more
detail.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. The data and
analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits
the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program
elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions
in connection with previous PM NAAQS.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As already mentioned, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. However, EPA is only
addressing element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to PSD in this action.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that generally must be
addressed in SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified
in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source
or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (``prong
1''), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state
(``prong 2''). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions
activity in one state interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in another state (``prong
3''), or to protect visibility in another state (``prong 4''). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
In previous actions, EPA has already taken action to address
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's SIP submissions
related to sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's final
rulemaking action relates only to requirements related to prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which as previously described, requires that
the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent
significant deterioration of its air quality. More information on this
requirement and EPA's rationale for today's proposal that each state is
meeting this requirement for purposes of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS is provided below.
II. This Action
EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi
and South Carolina's infrastructure submissions as demonstrating that
the States meet the applicable requirements of prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, that relate to adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that interfere with any other state's required
measures to prevent significant deterioration of its air quality for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)
of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated
by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP.
On December 5, 2012, EPA proposed to approve Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina's July 25, 2008, July 23, 2008, December
7, 2007, and March 14, 2008, (respectively, for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS) and September 23, 2009, October 21, 2009,
October 6, 2009, and September 18, 2009, (respectively, for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS) infrastructure SIP submissions
addressing prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
Regarding final approval of Georgia and South Carolina's prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA's December 5, 2012 (77 FR 72284), proposed
action required EPA to first take final action to approve Georgia's
July 26, 2012, and South Carolina's May 1, 2012, SIP revisions
regarding PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it
relates to PM2.5 Increments) into each State's
implementation plan. Final approval of Georgia's July 26, 2012, PSD SIP
revision was signed on March 27, 2013, and final approval of South
Carolina's May 1, 2012, PSD SIP revision was signed on March 21, 2013.
EPA notes that on September 26, 2012, the Agency approved the
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) portion of the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule into the SIPs for Alabama
and Mississippi. See 77 FR 59100 and 77 FR 59095. Since that time, on
January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued
a judgment that, inter alia, vacated the provisions adding the
PM2.5 SMC to the federal regulations, at 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated as part
of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. In its
decision, the court held that EPA did not have the authority to use
SMCs to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement in
section 165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient monitoring data for
PM2.5 be included in all PSD permit applications. Thus,
although the PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a
State's PSD program and thus not a structural requirement for purposes
of infrastructure SIPs, were a SIP-approved PSD program that contains
such a provision to use that provision to issue new permits without
requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such application of
the SIP would be inconsistent with the court's opinion and the
requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.
Given the clarity of the court's decision, it would now be
inappropriate for Mississippi or Alabama to continue to allow
applicants for any pending or future PSD permits to rely on the
PM2.5 SMC in order to avoid compiling ambient monitoring
data for PM2.5. Because of the vacatur of the EPA
regulations, the SMC provisions, included in these States' SIP-approved
PSD programs on the basis of EPA's regulations are unlawful and no
longer enforceable by law. Permits issued on the basis of these
provisions as they appear in approved SIPs would be inconsistent with
the CAA and difficult to defend in administrative and judicial
challenges. Thus, the SIP provisions may not be applied even prior to
their removal from the SIPs. Mississippi and Alabama should instead
require applicants requesting a PSD permit, including those having
already been applied for but for which the permit has
[[Page 21843]]
not yet been received, to submit ambient PM2.5 monitoring
data in accordance with the CAA requirements whenever either direct
PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor is emitted in a
significant amount.\1\ As the previously-approved PM2.5 SMC
provisions in the Mississippi and Alabama SIPs are no longer
enforceable, EPA does not believe the existence of the provisions in
the States' SIPs precludes today's approval of the infrastructure SIP
submissions for these States as the submissions relate to prong 3 of
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In lieu of the applicants' need to set out PM2.5
monitors to collect ambient data, applicants may submit
PM2.5 ambient data collected from existing monitoring
networks when the permitting authority deems such data to be
representative of the air quality in the area of concern for the
year preceding receipt of the application. EPA believes that
applicants will generally be able to rely on existing representative
monitoring data to satisfy the monitoring data requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA intends to initiate a rulemaking to correct SIPs that were
approved with regard to the PM2.5 SMCs prior to the court's
decision. EPA also advises the States to begin preparations to remove
the PM2.5 provisions from their state PSD regulations and
SIPs. However, EPA has not yet set a deadline requiring States to take
action to revise their existing PSD programs to address the court's
decision.
EPA also notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals,
in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250, 2013 WL 45653
(D.C. Cir., filed July 15, 2008) (consolidated with 09-1102, 11-1430),
issued a judgment that remanded EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered EPA to
``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this
opinion.'' Id. at *8. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the CAA
establishes additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment
areas.
The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision,
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' 73 FR 28321 (May
16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of
PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and
attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of Subpart 4
only pertain to nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the portions
of the 2008 rule that address requirements for PM2.5
attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's
opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD
requirements promulgated in the 2008 rule in order to comply with the
court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's actions for the Florida
infrastructure SIPs as related to element (D)(i)(II) with respect to
the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule does
not conflict with the court's opinion.
The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also does not
affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA
interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due 3 years after adoption or
revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to
as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by
the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part
D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some
elements.
Additionally, it should be noted that in the December 5, 2012,
proposed rule, on page 72286, in footnote 2, EPA stated that
``[o]n June 11, 2010, the South Carolina Governor signed an Executive
Order to confirm that the State had authority to implement appropriate
emission thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to PSD permitting requirements for
their GHG emissions at the state level.'' It should have read ``[o]n
June 11, 2010, the South Carolina Governor signed a Joint Resolution to
confirm that the State had authority to implement appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to PSD permitting requirements for
their GHG emissions at the state level.''
EPA received one comment in support of EPA's action and one off-
topic comment on its December 5, 2012, proposed rulemaking to approve
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's SIP submissions as
meeting the prong 3 requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA
for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The off-
topic Commenter wanted ``to congratulate EPA workers for trying to
decrease particles and increase the public's health.'' This comment
does not appear to be related to the issues presented in the proposed
rulemaking, and instead, appears related to a wholly separate topic--
promulgation of the new 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA does not
interpret this comment as relevant to the topic of EPA's December 5,
2012, proposed action. Instead, EPA interprets this comment as being
off-topic and outside of the scope of today's final rulemaking.
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's infrastructure
submissions addressed the prong 3 requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA has determined that Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's submissions are consistent
with section 110 of the CAA.
III. Final Action
As described above, EPA is approving SIP submissions for Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina to incorporate provisions into
the States' implementation plans to address the prong 3 requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the
States' prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions because they are
consistent with section 110 of the CAA. Today's action is not approving
any specific rule, but rather making a determination that Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's already-approved SIPs meet
certain CAA requirements.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
Commonwealth law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4);
[[Page 21844]]
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
EPA has determined that this final rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because there are no ``substantial direct effects''
on an Indian Tribe as a result of this action. EPA notes that the
Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within South Carolina.
Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann.
27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws and regulations
apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully
enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.''
Thus, while the South Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba Reservation,
because today's action is not a substantive revision to the South
Carolina SIP, and is instead proposing that the existing SIP will
satisfy the prong 3 requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA has
determined that today's action will have no ``substantial direct
effects'' on the Catawba Indian Nation. EPA has also determined that
these revisions will not impose any substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 11, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: March 28, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart B--Alabama
0
2. In Sec. 52.50, paragraph (e) is amended by adding two new entries
for ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end
of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.50 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic submittal date/ EPA Approval date Explanation
provision or nonattainment area effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Alabama.............. 7/25/2008 4/12/2013 [Insert citation of Addressing element
Requirements for 1997 Fine publication]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 only
Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Alabama.............. 9/23/2009 4/12/2013 [Insert citation of Addressing element
Requirements for 2006 Fine publication]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 only
Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart L--Georgia
0
3. In Sec. 52.570, paragraph (e) is amended by adding two new entries
for ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end
of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.570 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 21845]]
EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic submittal date/ EPA Approval date Explanation
provision or nonattainment area effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
42. 110(a)(1) and (2) Georgia.............. 7/23/2008 4/12/2013 [Insert citation of Addressing element
Infrastructure Requirements for publication]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 only
1997 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
43. 110(a)(1) and (2) Georgia.............. 10/21/2009 4/12/2013 [Insert citation of Addressing element
Infrastructure Requirements for publication]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 only
2006 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart Z--Mississippi
0
4. In Sec. 52.1270, paragraph (e) is amended by adding two new entries
for ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end
of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic submittal date/ EPA approval date Explanation
provision or nonattainment area effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Mississippi.......... 12/7/2007 4/12/2013 [Insert citation of Addressing element
Requirements for 1997 Fine publication]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 only
Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Mississippi.......... 10/6/2009 4/12/2013 [Insert citation of Addressing element
Requirements for 2006 Fine publication]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3 only
Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart PP--South Carolina
0
5. In Sec. 52.2120, paragraph (e) is amended by adding three new
entries for ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards''
and ``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' at the end
of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved South Carolina non-regulatory provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Provision effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) 4/14/2008 4/12/2013 [Insert citation of Addressing element
Infrastructure Requirements publication]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3
for 1997 Fine Particulate only
Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) 9/18/2009 4/12/2013 [Insert citation of Addressing element
Infrastructure Requirements publication]. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 3
for 2006 Fine Particulate only
Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2013-08266 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
